Franchise Frühstück Consultants House GmbH
Franchise-Frühstück Consultants House GmbH
Tonisvorst (Krefeld)
On February 20, 2011, Mr. DL van Dam was invited to participate in a “Franchise Frühstück”, organized by Consultants House GmbH, Mr. Jörg Eckhold, one of the leading franchise consultants in Germany. At issue was cross-border franchising, in particular from Germany to the Netherlands. Various German franchisors were present. The topics included:
European law aspects – competition – the relationship between German and Dutch franchise agreements – differences between German and Dutch law – obtaining financing in the Netherlands – how to deal with turnover and result forecasts – the pre-contractual relationships in general – differences in mentality between Germany and the Netherlands.
The Franchise Frühstück took place in Tönisvorst, near Krefeld, and started at 10 am.
Mr DL van Dam – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice Would you like to respond? Mail to vandam@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
The limitation of a non-competition clause
A former franchisee has a non-compete clause in his franchise agreement that prohibits him from cooperating during and for two years after the termination of the franchise agreement.
Franchise agreement/sublease agreement link
Franchise agreements and sublease agreements must be adequately linked. After all, the sublease agreement is governed by mandatory tenancy law. Not easy here
Franchising is serious business
Franchise practice is characterized by a wide variety of issues that manifest themselves in it.
Price maintenance: always void?
The Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled some time ago that influencing the price level at which the franchisee sells the products to the consumer can be susceptible to competition law.
Another franchisor against will and thanks?
For various reasons, franchisors and franchisees are confronted with the (desire to) transfer of rights
Compensation for insufficient duty of care by the franchisor
Compensation for insufficient duty of care by the franchisor